Re: Anyone that disagrees with this is not telling the truth --- V5 --- Professor Sipser

Op 22.aug.2024 om 14:59 schreef olcott:

On 8/22/2024 3:16 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 22.aug.2024 om 06:22 schreef olcott:

 <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
     If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
     until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
     stop running unless aborted then
      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
     specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
 We swap the word "determines" for "predicts"
 When we swap thew word "halt decider" for
"termination analyzer" the above is translated
from computer science into software engineering.
 The second half proves that this is the H that aborts
that is making the prediction of the behavior of D when
emulated by a hypothetical version of itself then never
aborts.

But Sipser does not talk about a 'hypothetical version of itself', but he meant the processing of the input itself, not another different hypothetical non-input.
How many changes are allowed to make a 'hypothetical version of itself'?
Is
void Infinite_Loop()
{
   HERE: // goto HERE;
}
still a 'hypothetical version of Infinite_loop, because only half a line was commented out?
Is it OK for the decider to process this hypothetical version instead of the input itself? That is what you do with your dreams of a hypothetical version. But dreams are no substitute for facts.

 

>
THIS EXACTLY MATCHES THE SIPSER APPROVED CRITERIA
The finite HHH(DDD) emulates itself emulating DDD exactly once
and this is sufficient for this HHH to predict what a different
HHH(DDD) do that never aborted its emulation of its input.
>

>
But that different hypothetical HHH is a non-input.

 HHH is supposed to predict what the behavior of DDD would be
if it did not abort its emulation of DDD that is what the
words that Professor agreed to mean.
 

Do you still not understand that HHH should predict the behaviour of its input? Why does the HHH have an input, if it is correct to predict the behaviour of a non-input?
Are you still cheating with the Root variable to change the input in a non-input?